BruceVC

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2015/01/cameroon-army-kills-143-boko-haram-fighters/ The Cameroon army seems more effective than the Nigerian army at dealing with Boko Haram and this isn't the first time they have had these types of military successes

Fair enough, lets say if I was asked to predict how long a military mission would take to reduce the effectiveness of BH I would say a year because of the area they operate in ?

I agree this is not a simple situation and you have raised some reasonable logistical challenges that would face any military force But there are several major differences between a military mission in Nigeria and lets say Afghanistan Boko Haram really only operate in 3 states in NE Nigeria so the area where they are in is not as large as you think? Still challenging, but not unmanageable If there was a consolidated effort to address the threat of Boko Haram ( BH )neighbours like Cameroon and Chad would assist by working to close the various border crossings. So unlike the Taliban who could basically safely cross into Pakistan to avoid having to face the US troops this escape mechanism would be much harder for BH BH seems to be using the vast Sambisa foret as there real place of operation. So with Nigerian trackers and a Western military force this forest could surely be entered and BH could be engaged ? As that is where there real military camps seem to be based http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/nigeria-sambisa-forest-boko-haram-hideout-kidnapped-school-girls-believed-to-be-held BH does have an official leader, the brutal Abubakar Shekua. If you kill him that should also reduce their military effectivenesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abubakar_Shekau But finally Gromnir I can't stress enough that the main reason for the seemingly ineffectual actions of the Nigerian military against BH is there lack of discipline, training and there low morale. If you bring a military force that is motivated and properly trained we would see a different result So yes I agree there are challengers with any military mission but don't think that the issues that would face a Western military force in Nigeria are insurmountable. I firmly believe they would be effective over a period of 8-12 months

It is a virus and its contagious, there are also two strains. But outbreaks are rare so don't worry too much

I'm sorry but that does sound absurd, a game winning awards and it hasn't been released yet

Okay I see where you have misunderstood my view on USA military intervention, I need to explain my view in a better way I still support military action by Western powers under certain circumstances, its should be clear to anyone where the USA has been absolutely correct to intervene militarily under certain conditions, like Bosnia and the airstrikes against ISIS ( I can give more examples if required ). But that doesn't mean I support all suggestions where the USA has been expected to intervene in conflicts or areas of concern around the world For example the USA could only have attacked Assad if they had ignored the UNSC and that would have meant another illegal intervention as far as the world was concerned...and I don't think I need to remind you of how bad Iraq was for the American image. So as much as I wanted the West to remove Assad because he was a brutal and intransigent dictator I wanted them to respect the UNSC more...and thats what happened. Obama was correct to not ignore the UNSC Then Iran, there was a real concerted effort to get the USA to attack Iran from Israel and certain Republicans. Obama ignored this pressure and now due to the severe sanctions Iran has come to the negotiating table in a way that I doubt bombing them would have achieved. So once again I support Obama in this decision So there is no contradiction in my view of defending Obama but also acknowledging that sometimes military intervention is needed. We have to look at each possible example of military intervention on a per case basis But none of this changes the fact that the West could efficiently engage and defeat Boko Haram if they wanted to. But my point is why should they? This is an African problem and if Africa cannot deal with them then the Nigerians need to make an official request to the UN to get a proper UN military mission funded by Nigeria to defeat Boko Haram. And yes the USA should be part of this because of there experience and effectiveness Finally we aren't talking about the West fixing the economies of a country like Nigeria, they just need to defeat Boko Haram. So no nation-building in this case ok, the last bit is a bit naive. the current government in nigeria is unwilling or unable to stop or even limit boko haram. am not certain what you thinks would be accomplished by a military action designed at nothing more than stopping a terrorist group. also, am not certain what makes you think UNSC is so meaningful. neverthless, what makes you think that a UNSC resolution authorizing military action in nigeria would be forthcoming? indifference perhaps? less than 20 people is killed in france and you got world leaders doing a unity march. 2,000 people are massacred in baga and where is the public outcry for the dead in africa we wonder. unsc? *snort* http://www.bbc.com/news/world-23847169 HA! Good Fun! Sure I hear you, its seems almost unfair when you look at all the attention paid to the Paris shootings and the constant massacres of civilians by Boko Haram...which seem to get very little world focus. Well thats the perception Thats a good link, I was aware of a legal clause where countries can intervene militarily in other countries without UNSC support if its due to humanitarian grounds. But even those lawyers in the link you posted say this is a more complicated way of military intervention and there would be numerous conditions. The point being you still prefer to get UNSC endorsement to ensure legitimacy And finally you right there is no guarantee you would get UNSC support but if a country like Nigeria, who is a non-permanent member currently of the UNSC, raised the notion and was prepared to fund it I would surprised if there would be any objections. But that takes political will and as I've said thats what is lacking from the AU and many of its member states

Okay I see where you have misunderstood my view on USA military intervention, I need to explain my view in a better way I still support military action by Western powers under certain circumstances, its should be clear to anyone where the USA has been absolutely correct to intervene militarily under certain conditions, like Bosnia and the airstrikes against ISIS ( I can give more examples if required ). But that doesn't mean I support all suggestions where the USA has been expected to intervene in conflicts or areas of concern around the world For example the USA could only have attacked Assad if they had ignored the UNSC and that would have meant another illegal intervention as far as the world was concerned...and I don't think I need to remind you of how bad Iraq was for the American image. So as much as I wanted the West to remove Assad because he was a brutal and intransigent dictator I wanted them to respect the UNSC more...and thats what happened. Obama was correct to not ignore the UNSC Then Iran, there was a real concerted effort to get the USA to attack Iran from Israel and certain Republicans. Obama ignored this pressure and now due to the severe sanctions Iran has come to the negotiating table in a way that I doubt bombing them would have achieved. So once again I support Obama in this decision So there is no contradiction in my view of defending Obama but also acknowledging that sometimes military intervention is needed. We have to look at each possible example of military intervention on a per case basis But none of this changes the fact that the West could efficiently engage and defeat Boko Haram if they wanted to. But my point is why should they? This is an African problem and if Africa cannot deal with them then the Nigerians need to make an official request to the UN to get a proper UN military mission funded by Nigeria to defeat Boko Haram. And yes the USA should be part of this because of there experience and effectiveness Finally we aren't talking about the West fixing the economies of a country like Nigeria, they just need to defeat Boko Haram. So no nation-building in this case

Glad you are alright, 7 years there was an outbreak of meningitis in one of the gyms in the south of where I live. 5 people died, all of them bodybuilders and one of them was one of my best friends. The hospital initially misdiagnosed his illness and when they realized what it was it was too late

My entire working career has been at colleges and universities. This may give more/less weight to my argument, depending on your feeling. I also was one of those financially challenged students who started with a local two year college because I could afford anything else, then transferred on to the local 4 year university. I took no loans out to finance my education - something I'm greatful for now. Yes your career is very relevant to this discussion, you are like Hurlshot. You are active in the industry. Its hard to argue this isn't the best source of feedback as its firsthand

This depends on your area and job requirements, and the degree type. A termianal associates (typically called an "Applied Associates") may meet eligiblity standards for a job or make you eligible for certification for a job. A regular assoicates may make you more marketable in general, but also in some areas may make you eligible for some jobs that requires some minimum of schooling (professional proctoring of tests, teachers aide, etc). This is a misperception of people who believe that spending a million dollars somehow makes something worth more. While it obviously differs by state and accredeting body, many community colleges are just as rigerous in their educational requirements as a 4 year school. But this is true for all educational institutions. This isn't more true for community college than any part of the liberal arts program at a university's first two years are (general lit, general history, general science, etc). However as access institutions they do tend to have larger programs and capacity to handle students who need preparatory skills in English or mathematics. Define "proper degree". A lot of it depends on the mission of a the college. A community college with a skill mission may heavily focus on career skills and technical skills (it might be part liberal arts and part technical school). A community college with a transfer focus may focus on providing a general education for students to transfer to traditional four year baccalaureate programs. They don't have "subpar education" unless there is something wrong with the college (or they're not appropriately accredited by a proper regulating authority). This depends on your area and job requirements, and the degree type. A termianal associates (typically called an "Applied Associates") may meet eligiblity standards for a job or make you eligible for certification for a job. A regular assoicates may make you more marketable in general, but also in some areas may make you eligible for some jobs that requires some minimum of schooling (professional proctoring of tests, teachers aide, etc). This is a misperception of people who believe that spending a million dollars somehow makes something worth more. While it obviously differs by state and accredeting body, many community colleges are just as rigerous in their educational requirements as a 4 year school. But this is true for all educational institutions. This isn't more true for community college than any part of the liberal arts program at a university's first two years are (general lit, general history, general science, etc). However as access institutions they do tend to have larger programs and capacity to handle students who need preparatory skills in English or mathematics. Define "proper degree". A lot of it depends on the mission of a the college. A community college with a skill mission may heavily focus on career skills and technical skills (it might be part liberal arts and part technical school). A community college with a transfer focus may focus on providing a general education for students to transfer to traditional four year baccalaureate programs. They don't have "subpar education" unless there is something wrong with the college (or they're not appropriately accredited by a proper regulating authority). Nice, another very fascinating post. But you guys seen to have very opposing views. I hope Hurlshot comments as he is involved in the industry

It's pretty simple. I personally know people in the military who have been there post 2011 and are going there again in a couple of weeks. They will tell you we never left. Just about anyone in the military that isn't a lying POS talking head on TV will tell you we never left. And it's no small sore spot with many people in the military. That Reuters article is a blatant lie. Vals thats a very serious accusation you making. You realize most people would need more evidence from you to believe it?

Community Colleges are colleges that 'service the community'. This may mean a wide degree of things, but typically they offer associate level collegiate degrees and various amounts of community/career enrichment courses. They are usually open access - particularly to those within their community. With the proper accreditation, an associates degree from one may serve as the first two years of a baccalaureate degree. The objection to the idea as I understand it is based on how it'll be paid for (federal taxes). These views are very interesting and they may have changed my initial point Are you saying that end of the day the majority of people who go through these colleagues don't end up really benefitting from them because of the subpar education and there attitude? So they effectively don't get a proper degree or they just don't complete the degree therefore making it useless?

The USA never left Iraq. That's a myth. We're sending a whole bunch more troops later this month to that place we supposedly pulled our troops out of. The USA isn't leaving Iraq anytime in the remotely foreseeable future, any more than it is leaving Saudi Arabia anytime in the remotely foreseeable future. It's quite dug in. Now this could be an interesting debate and I would like us to have it The Americans left Iraq and effectively ended their military contribution in 2011 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/18/us-iraq-withdrawal-idUSTRE7BH03320111218 Yes there were private contractors still doing some military work and of course some business partnerships but officailly the USA left Iraq If you don't agree they left in 2011 then can you explain exactly why you don't accept that ?

Guys I'm going to be honest I am missing what the objection to this idea is. I have tried to understand it but clearly I'm missing something..but I need to ask a very relevant question and then I'll make my main point Are these Community Colleagues the same as university? In other words you need at least your grade 12 and then you basically get a degree at the Colleague ?

In my experience its just a cynical expression. "Oil" usually representing a variable material interest. Hahaha. Come on Baro, lets try to be reasonable now Of course every single country has there own self-interest in mind when they act in the global arena But my issue is there seems to be no positive recognition to the decisions made by Western countries when they intervene in other countries affairs when the reality is its more effort for them, in other words it would much easier to not intervene I can give plenty of examples but lets just discuss one, when the Yazidi where trapped on that mountain in Iraq ISIS was quite prepared to commit genocide against them. But the USA intervened and broke the siege and allowed the majority of the Yazidi to survive. Do you really think the USA wanted to be involved in Iraq again? Of course not, this was a humanitarian mission because the reality was no one was really prepared to commit military resources unless the USA did ? Do you not think the USA deserves some credit ? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/40000-iraqis-stranded-mountain-isis-death-threat http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/20/world/meast/isis-violence/index.html

Well if every single time the West intervenes in any conflict and the reason that people give is "its because of oil " then you need to question that logic ? I have acknowledged before that certain interventions were based on economic interest, like Iraq, but sometimes the reason for intervention is humanitarian or because there is a real threat or military justification.

Serious question, how do you deal with kids that are ok with murder? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11338842/Paris-attacks-Two-worlds-collide-on-street-where-terrorists-lived.html This article highlights a real social problem that many European countries are grappling with. In France you have groups of Muslims who don't feel part of mainstream French culture and feel alienated from French society despite several opportunities presented to them There is also an effective campaign of propaganda from the likes of ISIS that resonates with many disenfranchised Muslim youth, they believe that the West is truly involved in a crusade against Islam. Even this article they talk about the anger that 60 years ago 200 Algerians were killed by French police. But during the Algerian civil war several hundred thousand Algerians were killed by extremists...where is the criticism about this violence? So whats the solution? I suppose you have to work harder at getting the message across that France wants to integrate all its citizens into its society. But to be honest this will only work for some. Other people needed to be arrested and or killed as they won't be prepared to compromise But this anti-Western sentiment from the Muslim communities within countries like France really does only represent a small minority of the overall Muslim community so we shouldn't see this as a social crisis. Im confident most Muslims are very happy living in France and being part of French culture "A muslim cannot feel welcomed in a non-muslim society. If the society has the same values as islam, then the muslim will feel welcomed" <-- Arguments like that are thrown around everyday. But my point is that how do you deal with neighbourhoods where people think murder is justified when insulted? How do you deal with such alienation on a such a profound level? I sure don't know. Well no Western country will ever have the same values as a country that for example is in the Middle East because Western countries are Democracies and practice freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I don't think most Muslims expect that from Western countries, I'm sure they are aware of the difference between France and lets say Saudi Arabia ? But yes if you read how that teacher was treated in that school, its very worrying and I would think the solution has to come from within the Muslim community. Its up to the parents and respected members of the Muslim community to get the message across that France is not " un-Islamic " and French society is not your enemy? But I agree its a tough one to try to convince people who want to kill there teacher for asking people to have one minute of silence

I would love to believe that I can understand how frustrating it must seem for some European countries, all these immigrants arrive and start living off certain social services. They initially get supported by tax paying citizens of a country. Then they get jobs and start contributing towards the economy....but then you see incidents like this Paris shooting where you see all this vitriol and hatred directed towards the country that basically gave them a home and livelihood. So you almost want to say " why do we even bother letting in people who just don't appreciate what they have " But we do live in a global world and places like the EU have fairly open borders for certain citizens so you can't really stop the movement of economic migrants..and thats what most of these immigrants are . They are looking for economic opportunities, we see this in South Africa all the time with many foreigners who come to South Africa looking for work from places like Zimbabwe and Mozambique So I still think the likes of Paris shooters represent a small part of the overall French muslim community as we can see from the Unity march and the condemnation from almost all mainstream Muslim organisations in France

Serious question, how do you deal with kids that are ok with murder? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11338842/Paris-attacks-Two-worlds-collide-on-street-where-terrorists-lived.html This article highlights a real social problem that many European countries are grappling with. In France you have groups of Muslims who don't feel part of mainstream French culture and feel alienated from French society despite several opportunities presented to them There is also an effective campaign of propaganda from the likes of ISIS that resonates with many disenfranchised Muslim youth, they believe that the West is truly involved in a crusade against Islam. Even this article they talk about the anger that 60 years ago 200 Algerians were killed by French police. But during the Algerian civil war several hundred thousand Algerians were killed by extremists...where is the criticism about this violence? So whats the solution? I suppose you have to work harder at getting the message across that France wants to integrate all its citizens into its society. But to be honest this will only work for some. Other people needed to be arrested and or killed as they won't be prepared to compromise But this anti-Western sentiment from the Muslim communities within countries like France really does only represent a small minority of the overall Muslim community so we shouldn't see this as a social crisis. Im confident most Muslims are very happy living in France and being part of French culture

The oil fields of Nigeria are no where near the areas that Boko Haram operates in. Also you do realize that the USA is now the worlds biggest producer of oil and natural gas http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html This is a big problem for conspiracy theorists who will now need to find new reasons for justifying Western intervention because the whole point " the USA only intervenes when there is oil " becomes a moot point

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ? But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram curious. what difference do you see between sub-saharan africa and the rest o' the world? am recalling a much different pov from you regarding other areas o' conflict. is a serious query. HA! Good Fun! But there is just no real political will. I'm not sure if I answered your question properly?If not can you explain in more detail? am trying to get You to explain in more detail. why is the conflicts in sub-saharan africa... different. you has, in the past, applauded western restraint in those geographic hotspots that had potential to become more serious conflagrations. please note that Gromnir is not actual advocating use of military force. that being said, we wishes to know why your pov regarding the possibility o' a western military solution in sub-saharan africa is different than other geographical loci o' conflict. HA! Good Fun! Okay but I'm still not clear on what conflicts in sub-saharan Africa you are talking about, can you be more specific? I have always supported Western intervention in certain conflicts, like Libya. But what I don't support is the AU doing nothing about real African issues, like Ebola and Boko Haram, and then waiting for the international community ( which translates to the West ) intervening to implement a certain change or prevent a humanitarian catastrophe

Well I'm not sure if he is joking or not but there is a valid case around how woefully unprepared most African countries are to deal militarily with Boko Haram So it is not unrealistic that we will need some kind of sustained Western military intervention to deal with Boko Haram, it could be the French, the British or the USA ? But its clear that the AU doesn't have the political will or means to deal with groups like Boko Haram curious. what difference do you see between sub-saharan africa and the rest o' the world? am recalling a much different pov from you regarding other areas o' conflict. is a serious query. HA! Good Fun! To be honest Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram have been two of the most difficult, dangerous and disruptive military threats to the African region that the continent has probably seen in decades. These groups don't threaten the sub-saharan region so there seems no real interest from SADEC in trying to resolve these issues, despite the fact that this is indeed an AU problem and this shouldn't be seen in just a regional context But to answer your question there are countries in the sub-saharan region, who do have the financial means, like Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa who could contribute meaningfully towards an AU military mission or help to establish what has been called an African Reactionary Force where all countries in the AU would commit resources. This reactionary force would be used within the continent to address African conflicts, this would mean that the AU is not dependent on the UN funding or Western troops to supplement any AU force But there is just no real political will. I'm not sure if I answered your question properly?If not can you explain in more detail?

There are plenty of very well informed, objective gaming websites. RPGCodex for me would be great but there is a lack of moderation. Too much free speech and offensive comments for someone like me RPS and Gamasutra offer excellent gaming insights. Despite what people will tell you they aren't "hardcore " SJ websites. They have the occasional article about SJ issues but there information outside of SJ issues is vast and relevant Gamebanshee, still one of the favorites. Very gamer focused and balanced articles

Thats interesting, I was always under the impression that death was inevitable in Project Zomboid. But it seems like you have found a way of long term survival ?

Mmmm....no I wouldn't say so. Romance can possibly be part of a story as your Romance arc can influence a characters actions but I don't consider the act of sex as part of the story? Its more a component of Romance